Inline-signing feature request: Directly set the signed zone's serial number

2014-10-07 Thread Terry Burton
Hi, After reinitialising the inline-signing process (for example by removing the journal files or redeploying the master server) the freshly signed zone's serial number will usually be behind the authoritative version on the slaves causing transfers to fail — possibly leading to expired

Re: Inline-signing feature request: Directly set the signed zone's serial number

2014-10-07 Thread Terry Burton
On 7 Oct 2014 18:42, Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 9:49 AM, Terry Burton wrote: This is especially useful in bootstrapping scenarios where the zone data is held under strict revision control or generated by some provisioning system that owns the serial number. By setting

Re: Inline-signing feature request: Directly set the signed zone's serial number

2014-10-07 Thread Terry Burton
On 7 Oct 2014 21:44, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 10/7/14 11:03 AM, Terry Burton wrote: With inline signing you have a hidden serial number in the unsigned zone and an exposed serial number in the signed versions which your slaves track. After redeployment (following DR

Re: Inline-signing feature request: Directly set the signed zone's serial number

2014-10-07 Thread Terry Burton
On 7 Oct 2014 22:35, Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 2:03 PM, Terry Burton wrote: On 7 Oct 2014 18:42, Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com mailto:a...@clegg.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 9:49 AM, Terry Burton wrote: This is especially useful in bootstrapping scenarios where the zone

BUG? Wildcard lookup masked by more specific record of alternative type

2014-02-14 Thread Terry Burton
Hi, Is the following expected or is it a bug? All the best, Terry ; This wildcard allows the lookup of test.domain A: ; *.domain IN A 1.2.3.4 ; ; This TLSA record breaks the lookup of test.domain A: ; _443._tcp.test.domain IN TLSA 1 0 1

Re: BUG? Wildcard lookup masked by more specific record of alternative type

2014-02-14 Thread Terry Burton
On 14 February 2014 12:01, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote: Terry Burton t...@terryburton.co.uk wrote: Is the following expected or is it a bug? It is correct. See RFC 4592 for the full explanation of how wildcards work. For sake of Google... RFC 4592 3.3.1 defines The closest encloser